Off Topic (Everything besides dubstep)
	
			
		
				
			- 
				
																			 wub
- Posts: 34156
- Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:11 pm
- Location: Madrid
- 
				Contact:
				
			
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by wub » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:10 am
			
			
			
			
			If the universe if infinite, then God must exist. If there are infinite possibilities of things then one of those possibilities involves the existence of God.
It's not that simple, is it? 

 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 Genevieve
- Posts: 8775
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:27 pm
- Location: 6_6
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by Genevieve » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:25 am
			
			
			
			
			No. Because another 'infinite possibility' is that God doesn't exist. So by their reasoning, those two 'possibilities' cancel each other out.
Another thing is. The argument jumps from 'the universe infinite' to there are 'infinite possibilities'. But it's not originally explained what aspect of the universe is infinite. It's sort of like saying "if the swimming pool is wet, it must be filled with coca-cola'. And it's not even proved THAT anything in the universe is 'infinite' in the quote. Nor did they define 'universe'.
			
			
									
									 
namsayin
:'0
 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
								NickUndercover							
- Posts: 2686
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Belgium
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by NickUndercover » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:52 am
			
			
			
			
			A near-impossible succession of coincidences gave birth to the universe, planet earth, life and mankind. Some people like to call it god, others like to call it chance. Matter of opinion IMO. (this is my view on the subject because it's simple enough for me and I can't be hassled to think on a question nobody's ever gonna be able to answer anyway.)
			
			
									
									cloaked_up wrote:im not a fan of belgium tho TBQH (genocide in the congo anyone????)
 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 Phigure
- Posts: 14134
- Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 5:55 am
- 
				Contact:
				
			
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by Phigure » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:54 am
			
			
			
			
			well in that case how about we add zeus, poseidon, krishna, the flying spaghetti monster, etc, etc all to the list
			
			
									
									
						 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 wub
- Posts: 34156
- Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:11 pm
- Location: Madrid
- 
				Contact:
				
			
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by wub » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:56 am
			
			
			
			
			Phigure wrote:well in that case how about we add zeus, poseidon, krishna.[..]to the list
The original quote didn't define what form God takes.
 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 Phigure
- Posts: 14134
- Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 5:55 am
- 
				Contact:
				
			
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by Phigure » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:57 am
			
			
			
			
			wub wrote:Phigure wrote:well in that case how about we add zeus, poseidon, krishna.[..]to the list
The original quote didn't define what form God takes.
 
well no matter how you define it, going by that logic, some other definition will also exist among "infinite possibilities"
 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 Genevieve
- Posts: 8775
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:27 pm
- Location: 6_6
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by Genevieve » Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:20 am
			
			
			
			
			Phigure wrote:wub wrote:Phigure wrote:well in that case how about we add zeus, poseidon, krishna.[..]to the list
The original quote didn't define what form God takes.
 
well no matter how you define it, going by that logic, some other definition will also exist among "infinite possibilities"
 
Right, but it's way more fun to disprove God on the basis of that argument then it is to accept trillions of Gods >.>
 
namsayin
:'0
 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 Pedro Sánchez
- Posts: 7727
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:15 pm
- Location: ButtonMoon
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by Pedro Sánchez » Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:20 am
			
			
			
			
			Wasteman quote but at least we can all agree that Heaven exists.
			
			
									
									Genevieve wrote:It's a universal law that the rich have to exploit the poor. Preferably violently.
 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 nousd
- Posts: 8654
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:22 am
- Location: approaching the flux pavillion
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by nousd » Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:26 am
			
			
			
			
			possibilities, however infinite,
don't necessarily manifest
and an infinite universe
doesn't necessarily contain everything possible
but the God conceived as transcendent,
greater than everything including possibilities,
would exist beyond infinity.
			
			
									
									{*}
						 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 scspkr99
- Posts: 1998
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:55 am
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by scspkr99 » Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:48 am
			
			
			
			
			So this seems a reduction of the ontological case for God stated initially about 1100;
Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
Therefore, God exists.
There are other formulations that are closer about being exists in all possible universes and this specific universe. In any case I'm not a massive fan of these kinds of logical arguments for God, they seem more a criticism of language than proof of God.
			
			
									
									
						 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 flint33
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:59 am
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by flint33 » Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:56 am
			
			
			
			
			sd5 wrote:
and an infinite universe
doesn't necessarily contain everything possible
 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
								kidshuffle							
- Posts: 13473
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:44 am
- Location: canada
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by kidshuffle » Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:00 am
			
			
			
			
			Wubs fedora finally came out.
			
			
									
									Beats/
Facebook/
TwitterLaszlo wrote:nowaysj wrote:Look at when Jedi's die, and then they become kind of shimmery and holographic.
.... 2Pac was a Jedi??  

 
 
						 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 exfox
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:42 pm
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by exfox » Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:04 am
			
			
			
			
			kidshuffle wrote:Wubs fedora finally came out.
only to prove that Jah is real tho
 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 scspkr99
- Posts: 1998
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:55 am
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by scspkr99 » Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:05 am
			
			
			
			
			I'll post a quick addendum;
Multiverses as the set of all possible universes exist
Each universe is different in the arrangement of space and time
In the list of all possible universes there exists a god 
that god is omnipotent, omnipotence allows god to operate distinct from time and space
if an omnipotent god exists in any possible universe he exists in all possible universes
god exists
			
			
									
									
						 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 Genevieve
- Posts: 8775
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:27 pm
- Location: 6_6
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by Genevieve » Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:11 am
			
			
			
			
			scspkr99 wrote:I'll post a quick addendum;
Multiverses as the set of all possible universes exist
Each universe is different in the arrangement of space and time
In the list of all possible universes there exists a god
that god is omnipotent, omnipotence allows god to operate distinct from time and space
if an omnipotent god exists in any possible universe he exists in all possible universes
god exists
It's only saying that God exists because it exists, doesn't it?
 
namsayin
:'0
 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 scspkr99
- Posts: 1998
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:55 am
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by scspkr99 » Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 am
			
			
			
			
			Yeah kind of, it's to do with the fact infinities seem to fuck everything up allowing for infinite possibilities.
It's the kind of question some pose, like if we have a finite number of arrangements elementary particles in an infinite space they must repeat infinitely. So that there are other people that resemble me in every imaginable way. I don't find those arguments compelling tbh
			
			
													
					Last edited by 
scspkr99 on Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
									
 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 jrkhnds
- Posts: 4180
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:35 am
- Location: Zurich / Basel
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by jrkhnds » Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:19 am
			
			
			
			
			infinity defies any logic reasoning though. you could argue that in one of the infinite amount of multiverses I'm impotent. also, you owe me a blowjob, because the sun is clearly a black hole.
			
			
									
									AxeD wrote:I dunno, there's some thoroughly unemployed people on this forum.
Soundcloud 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
								Laszlo							
- Posts: 3845
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:31 am
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by Laszlo » Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:26 am
			
			
			
			
			flint33 wrote:sd5 wrote:
and an infinite universe
doesn't necessarily contain everything possible
 
Why is that? What about the monkeys and typewriters?
And to the OP i'd say no. Infinite possibilities of the natural, yes. Supernatural, no.
 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 scspkr99
- Posts: 1998
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:55 am
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by scspkr99 » Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:36 am
			
			
			
			
			Genevieve wrote:
It's only saying that God exists because it exists, doesn't it?
There's a whole class of presuppositional apologetic arguments that aren't compelling either, the stuff gets posed
P1 Morals are only possible if God
P2 Morals are possible
C God
Like the arguments is logically sound the conclusion can naturally be drawn from the premises but the premise presupposes god, it's cheating.
 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
				
		
				
			- 
				
																			 Genevieve
- Posts: 8775
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:27 pm
- Location: 6_6
						
						
													
							
						
									
						Post
					
								by Genevieve » Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:44 am
			
			
			
			
			scspkr99 wrote:Genevieve wrote:
It's only saying that God exists because it exists, doesn't it?
There's a whole class of presuppositional apologetic arguments that aren't compelling either, the stuff gets posed
P1 Morals are only possible if God
P2 Morals are possible
C God
Like the arguments is logically sound the conclusion can naturally be drawn from the premises but the premise presupposes god, it's cheating.
 
Yeah exactly. They're clever in the way they're mindgames. Like the one you posted earlier, it flings unrelated concepts around that confuse the reader, followed by an absolute claim of God that completely throws the reader off while they're still trying to process the idea of a multiverse.
The point seems to be that, because you can't piece together logically what's being said, you don't understand the logic behind it and therefore you're wrong.
It's a trick often used by those really clever Youtube philosophers/debaters.
 
namsayin
:'0
 
		 
				
		
		 
	 
	
	
	
	
		
		Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests